I am not aware of any. Item four. Board of directors new and old business. I am seeing none. Item five executive directors report. I would like to thank the board for their guidance and leadership this year which was critical to our critical to our achievements. I would like to thank our student advisory committee. As we wrap up, we can reflect on pride with what we accomplished together. We reopened the Transit Center after an independent review. We recommissioned the entire facility, and we worked with transit operators to fully operate the bus plaza and deck. We wanted to ensure a smooth opening for commuters and the general public. We have been operating for six months, and we have put the experience of the transit riders and public as number one. We provided a world class facility. We are seeing tens of thousands of people every day at the Transit Center. The janitorial security and park programming staff are in hand every day providing a welcoming presence to the public. As we operate my charge is to be nimble to the needs to everyone who uses the Transit Center and provide the best service to the public possible. In 2019 we reached 75 of the retail spaces at the Transit Center with the nationwide challenge of filling retail storefronts. We continued to on board new tenants such as on site dental which opened in november. Sf fit mess, very eye sf fitness. We are working closely with the other 15 tenants to open as soon as possible. I am happy to report progress on plans to improve the way finding at the Transit Center. Before you is approval of a service contract. They will lead the effort in partnership with the commission. I would like to thank them for providing the initial funding toward the effort for a study to best enhance our way finding at the Transit Center. There will be another 100,000 for the effort that is really important. Phase two on the downtown extension. This was a significant achievement when we secured full environmental clearance. We have contacted senator scott weiner and Assembly Members and the bay area caucus to express our support for the Bay Area Program and request inclusion of funds to facilitate the downtown extension program. I believe the Transit Center is an International Model for development in Northern California for highspeed rail and essential element for accomplishing the second transbay rail crossing and ideal candidate for the revenue program. We are funding for the 2020 transit and ticp for phase two for the transit program. It is part of the sd1 program. I look forward to working with our partners on phase 2 in 2020 including m. T. C. , caltrain and city and county of San Francisco. They are concluding the findings this morning on delivery of phase two. 2020 will see a renewed commitment to the public. I look forward to working with all of you. Before you is the Quarterly Financial report. I would like to invite Christine Falvey to provide you an overview of the market. She will be followed by the team to conclude the presentation for the findings of the peer review from last month and respond to any questions you might have. Good morning. I wanted to give you a quick holiday on the holiday bazaar. We are partnering with off the grid who are transforming the center and plaza to a welcoming holiday scene for downtown and the transit riders and the residents visiting. These are a few quick photos. We are doing a lot of marketing to get more foot traffic. It is growing now that we are closer to the holidays and a lot of pickup about the bazaar. More and more people are frequenting the retail shops and the dining and the bar. You can see the pictures in the grand hall, if you havent been already. There is a snug bar that is very popular every time i walk by. The retail booths of artists and makers. It helps people shop local, activates the space and makes the Transit Center a destination for people. We are also partnering with boston property. Off the grid was busy decorating and activating the plaza as well. It is a sight to see with a stage, live music, bars, food, all supporting the local workers and makers. I wanted to give you that quick update. It started november 29 through december 24. 21 retail booths could use our shoppers. We want to be done every year. They will be making changes out there since they opened noticing the trends out there. I encourage you to come and go to the website to learn about the hours. I am here to answer any questions. Just one quick addition. Brb is activating the park with winter fest with free events for the public with holiday photos and crafts. That is all free to public. That starts december 19th. We will start promoting that now. I would like to ask fs scta for the peer review. John. John fisher from wsb. Good morning, directors. I believe i was before you last month and presented the final recommendations. I was saved by the bell from maybe your questions. I am happy to summarize, but i went through them up to the very end. We had the fire alarm. I want to make sure that i can answer any of your questions. I appreciate everyones input into this process. We have had engagement with many of you and your colleagues and other agencies that strengthened our final recommendations and also put a dose of reality into what we started out as our mission of strengthening the funding and finance and delivery for the project which is critical for not only the San Francisco bay but the mega region. I am happy to take any questions you might have. Comments . Thank you so much. I really appreciate all of the work that went into that report, and i am sorry that we were cut off by the bell. We lost a little bit of continuity. I worry that staff when they dont hear back from us immediately think that it is through lack of interest, which is not in this situation. Thank you so much for all of the work. I really do agree with the recommendations in the report. I think speaking also with my caltrain board hat on, gtx is important to us all. The working group or Steering Committee to keep everybody involved and make sure all parties are represented in those discussions is a really good idea, and i look forward to what that can accomplish. Thank you again. Thank you. I have more comments than questions. The presentation was good. I read the report. Thank you for that. Over the last year we have had the benefit of both the review you have done as well as the work that was done at the vice chairs request. We have had great advice from both reviews that have happened for how to move the program forward. What i took was the need for stronger project Delivery Organization and what we can do to bolster the team working on the project. Some of that is in your recommendations as well. What i took away from your report was the need to make the case for the project, and that is essential in moving it forward. We need to make sure that it is important for caltrain and highspeed rail in the state and on a National Level as well. I look back on my time on this board and weep spent a we spent a lot of time with finishing the Transit Center and dealing with the issues we have had in operations. As i look to 2020 and you can closeout 2019 for us, i am interested in having the world get into the gtx issues and questions and be out front part of advocating for the project. This is going to be important and there is nobody else to do it. It is the entity that has to be the driving force, and we have had a lot of recommendations with great partners and thank you, tilley, for commissioning this study. I think now we have to mandate to get trains to the sales force Transit Center. I am excited to start on this and have this entity play that important leadership role in getting that program going. Thank you. Thank you, john for coming back. I hope there is not a fire drill this time so that we have a chance to have a conversation. S. F. C. T. A. And the panel for the work and there is no question about the importance to Northern California. I have a number of clarifying questions, many i raised on september 3rd are are not quite clear to me where we are going. I agree with my colleagues we need to move forward but i would like to see it move faster and the big question that is or barrier was addressed in the peer review and i will get to that in my comments and questions. I am curiouser from the curious, what does success mean . It wasnt defined. It wasnt. Youationed that in our meet you raised that in our meeting. Success means Different Things to different people. We had a Diverse Panel that was one of our outcomes or hope for outcome was setting up the framework to realize trains into the Transit Center sooner or on a schedule predictable with a funding plan that is credible and supported at every local, state and federal level. To me that would be success. Success for the panel is getting the train to downtown regardless of budget or schedule . Getting the train downtown . The case studies sited had nothing to do with budget or schedule. Correct. That was one. It is confusing for me. That was a reason to look at the case studies of the projects that went over budget, longer than expected which mega projects do. Those case studies inform the panel. The panel was very clear onsetting affordability limit and phasing the project to meet that limit. That was a departure from the other mega projects we looked at. Going to the phasing part then, my reading of the detailed report, not just the power point, i think the implied phasing is building whatever tunnel structures are needed to get whatever trains are first and whoever doesnt have money comes second . Is that what that meant or building the tunnel as you have money regardless of operability . No, we spent time looking at that with the staff and prior work done to date. I think that we didnt see it as the panels place to make recommendations around phasing. The refresh both on the cost side but also on the funding and feasibility side, i think that we may be subjecte punted of. The panel cited the need for a clear definition from the operators, both operating criteria and longterm commitment and timing. I dont think those are defined. Those need to be reigned in. It is tough to phase a tunnel. You are not going to build half a tunnel. The elements and the projects around fourth and king and the 22nd street station all play part of the longterm view at that 4dtx as well as the longer term view of the second crossing, which was clearly part of the planning process, our panel felt. Excuse me. If i may add. The basic concept we are intending to implement is what is the minimum part of the project that can be done none satisfying the needs of caltrain and highspeed rail that can get the trains to the station as soon as possible . So we are not specifically setting a number of what that should be, it is really more of making sure that it is going to operate the way that it needs to operate and so in a way it is just some aspects that can wait. They are not needed on the first day. That is the concept we are following. I appreciate that clarification. The report didnt say that. I am curious. It didnt say that in the report. We want the minimum structures to achieve operability rather than looking at phasing without any comment about operability or anything. Billed half a tunnel, one mile of tunnel . Say what you said in the report, and when you say argue for transparency. What is going on here . Whatever the refresh is, why didnt the report just say what you just said . That was their decision. We moved to implementation. The devil is in the details that is in the implementation that is the direction we are taking. We have been working with the staff to do just that. The first order of business. Yes, it may be that there is not much that can be deferred. We dont know that yet. We want to explore the possibilities and implications. Operability is important and that was not in the report. It was strange for me. If we provide the leadership, we have to get a train or something. It doesnt make sense to build part of a tunnel and have it dead end. Absolutely. I was curious about that. Thank you for the clarification. The other part of it was, you know, in the business i am in we look at structures and the building owner. Cold shell, warm shell and 10 improvements. How much did that go to the thinking of the Peer Review Panel that tgpa owns the structure and the operators do their own improvements. Cold shell, warm shell, highspeed rail or is this turnkey from tjpas perspective . How much of that went to the panels reflections andy baits and discussions . There were discussions on that. I think we highlighted that as an activity in the two year work plan to make those decisions on o and m. It will likely influence procurement and the timing of funds potentially but other sources of funds. I think it was always recognized that tgpa is the owner and operator of the center. That is the conversation that started with the operators but hasnt fully gelled to working that out. That was in addition to the design criteria and elements of the facilities but who would own them is an important question. If you are looking at the shared service between caltrain and the state entity, i think the panel looked at other models, and i think this is very unique in terms of the work done on phase 1. I think the report didnt address that other than to say that needed looked at. It is assumed tjpa is the owner and operator and worked that out and the transit is operating now and is partner and would see that structure replicated with the operatorses the facility. If that included bart someday, those were the things we talked about. Those are high level. It is another important element that needs to get done. I just want to circle back to a conversation we had to the point about transparency. As i mentioned your input shaped this and one question was the we are looking at phasing and deferring elements of high speed rail you are not really transparent about those costs down the road. We did add language. The panel added language in the final report to recommend cost benefit analysis be done by the integrated team when those decisions are made. It is not a surprise. That was a good point. I did want to circle back that we heard you and included that. Your comment about ownership is important. It goes to the next questions to the panel. Identify that someone needs to own the asset between fourth and king and the sales force center. Someone has to own it, not the esc. Some entity has though own it and some entity has to have balance sheet. Did they do that work or safe it needed sorted out . It was recognized. There was debate around the financing workshop about any entity advancing or responsible for the o and m. May need to be a grant recipient holder. Phase one the loan secured for phase one, that infrastructure exists today in tjpa. It wasnt clear the panel feet we needed to recreate that. It was more strengthening the funding and finance plan. And the project delivery options. For me it seems that the biggest barrier isnt project delivery at the moment. It is funding. How much work was done on funding. There is talk about high liability funding and low. Fta calls high reliability funding that there is no further action required by anyone. How many money do we have with no other action required by anyone . That is a question. I am not aware of any. Every piece of funding we have requires someone to do something. I guess it depending what action is needed. Action by any court or anybody. 325 million that we consider to be committed because it is programmed and the voters voted for it. There is an action required . Yes, we have the Community Facility district funding which requires selling of bonds. We have tax increment that requires selling of bonds. We consider them committed funding. They are available and we dont see the entities not providing the funding. We have 1 billion to 1. 2 billion of committed funding. Does that meet the fta definition. From past experience it does meet it. They are looking for documents that assure the money will flow pending certain requests. On the fta funding, i understand as the numbers get bigger the percentages are getting lower as the number gets bigger. Has that benefactors into a funding strategy or concept or was that deferred to the work plan to somebody else . The initial focus of panel was being clear about the aspirational funding and separating that from what is bankable. There is a lot of discussion on the passenger facility charge notion in the funding charge as not something to take to the market. Separating those from committed funds. We understood there was a lot of action to take. The panel spent more time looking at potential new sources of funds and making sure the separation of aspirational versus bankable would support and leverage future funding sources. The bay area was mentioned. That was the motion of really repositioning the project for the more regional and National Significant delivery. It was more than service between fourth and king. To be ready to be competitive in the new buckets. We are looking for reauthorization on the federal level that is highly competitive. That was recognized. I think that fta is looking at different models, the capacity project. In Sant Santa Clara they are cag the interest. California has a long history of the selfhelp and over matching the federal requirements to get projects done. It was assumed there would be multiple sources. It would be about the affordability limit or first operable segment that could lend that credibility to the financing plan that you had an arm around the cost and you werent taking that plan to aspiration align im tems that werent available at the moment. Thank you for open the door to the importance. I am curious given the nature of the projected and how it benefits the region, is there any discussion about the state Rail Authority delivering the project versus some hybrid . There was discussion. When you look at the second crossing, the only place that appears at the moment is the state rail plan. It was quickly noted the state is participating through highspeed rain. From a delivery standpoint it is important to restate the commitment to this project and the mandate to get to the sales force Transit Center even if the funds are you in a future plan, they are committed to paper now. Thathat is a strong commitment about strengthening that. The state has funding or delivery . Delivery. You went as far as saying this group should deliver. What about the state delivering . There was discussion but it never. I think the outcome that we landed on was the stakeholder agencies here and represented in our study. The state is an important player, and yet pretty thin on staff. I think in terms of support, but i think where we landed was the states primary interest is highspeed rail. They are included in the governance of this. We werent trying to add more players, i guess. It just sort of is hard to keep this tied together when it says we dont want to add mer players but we want to add these councils to advise. How do these tie together . It is a struggle for me. The report is clear. Part of the issue for lack of confidence to deliver dtx. That was a statement in the report. How do i get confident that the project delivery can do a better job . What have they delivered that demonstrates they can do it better on budget and on schedule . I am not sure if i can answer that for you. The recommendation was looking at other models that worked for big mega projects. Those are projects in if project Development Like the bay bridge. By bringing in ctc it helped with project delivery and controlling the costs very late in the process. I will give you that. I think that there is the project Development Phase that we are talking about. The report recommended models through a Construction Authority or an entity that is separate. La metro has used that model with some success. It was never meant to call out failures. How do we strengthen this to make it more robust. Thinkinoften big projects may gt called in to contribute additional money. Lets do that upfront together. Concept is not esc is better, it is stronger. It is part of it. It is adding the people that have more skin in the game, funding partners, to strengthen instead of having a Smaller Group of people. How about the power and resources of the other agencies work cooperatively to deliver the project. I will note i have been on the case studies. There was a good outcome on the presidio parkway that was delivered between the state and local agencies. I wanted to mention that. The bay bridge wasnt a great example to throw in there. I understand. I can go on. Thank you for bringing this back. I just want to add i am one who is trying to get something done. I think i bring a unique perspective to manage projects to deliver projects and schedule with credibility behind that. I struggled with the report because it didnt talk about that. I was recently a speaker on a panel about mega projects in did region and i identified three things that are challenges. Number one is funding. I dont think an equal amount of time was spent on funding projects. It was more focused on project delivery. Two, and it is because of these projects and because of the scale, politics get in the way. Ththe report was silent on politics. I am talking about the elected people with different agendas. Not everybody is in alignment. When you get the train downtown, there are sub agendas behind this and the report didnt tackle any of it. That is why it takes 40 years to get electrification of cal tracks. It is not about trains on schedule. It is about politics. The report didnt tackle that. A two year framework, get decisions made. That report was to be delivered, if i recall correctly, in june of this year. Here we are december, six months later. Bureaucracy, whatever you want to call it. The report ignored all of that and the reality. From my standpoint, i tell everybody construction is easy. It is concrete, rebar, heavy equipment doesnt talk back, no elected agendas, no constituents and things like that. That was the easy part the design and construction and delivery. That is easy to take care of. The other two are extremely difficult when you talk about regional projects that cross jurisdictions and counties and involve the state. You have different elected officials with different agendas, different funding sources, different requirements, even when your is are dotted they want extra is added. The report didnt dive into that. It was a struggle for me to figure out where are we goings in a realistic timeline. The number one issue is coming with a funding plan to move on in a timely manner. The other stuff we can push through. The technology is there. Unless we come up with a highly defined reliable funding strategy that everyone buys into, we are not going into. We cant get to 30 engineering right now. That is delayed three years and counting. I know there are electives that say if we wait, it will get cheaper. It is not going to get cheaper. I am struggling with the report and how to move forward. The funding plan to me is the most important thing to over come. The private sector is not going to finance the project by itself. This is not a deal to get done by the private sector. They have a role in it but they are not going to fund three or four billion dollars or 50 . We have to figure out how to get this done and set aside governance and who controls what. The panel didnt tackle that, as far as i am concerned. In probably you are correct maybe not head on with the explosive language. The two areas where we did id the need for more internal and external champions. They were influence in the community. The other area is articulating the benefits of a Regional Program or remaying i will was a recommendation to rebrand it but really the Value Proposition of doing this and having a robust communication plan. It is tough to do. The bill is easier than getting the consensus. That is an imperative part. Ir want to express appreciation to this body and the members of the working group and partners who participated in the plan. Iit is the extra panels report. The ta did concur at the time of approval in october. I appreciate all of the staff that spent countless hours working with us and many of the agencies at the partner table came in for funding. The Transportation Authority was pleased to approve funding for the fourth and king rail yards work and 22nd street station as well as pennsylvania avenue. Those pieces have gone forward. What is pending we have a request. This feedback is very important to us. One of the thingsness will be for us to review the recommendations of the panel and decide how to go forward. We will provide the leadership that i appreciate you mentioning. This is the time to focus and learn from the lessons of the prior mega projects. We looked at so many together, all of us. This are very few that are delivered on time and budget on this scale. One of the things to discuss is the panel goes to make those hard choices if we have the train by 2030, that may not be achievable with the x billion dollars more for pennsylvania program. There is exciting opportunities, but to be responsible i look forward to working with the different partners on looking and trying to come up with an achievable first phase. Of course, i completely agree with you about the funding strategy. I believe the money is there. I think even to make the case and support the team and demonstrate we have taken that hard look and we are not asking for all of it. If it is needed to achieve the goal on day one. Thank you so much. I will just add thank you. I think that was a good point. We need to make the case and we need to show the public not only that this is a very important project, the increase in service on caltrain, high field rain. If you look at the numbers, the bay bridge cant carry much more until we zinc the buses into the transbay center. The health of the region depends on that. We will remind pro lick it is necessary. The fact other projec projects e gone over project and over schedule. It means we laser focus to do what we can to deliver as quickly and efficiently as we can. It from you straights me having been around and washing the mega projects. It would be grade to have wind of coming in under schedule. When we look at projects it is for all generations after us. If people working on the mega project we depend on every day had said it might take too lon , we have to push forward. That is what the city is looking for us to do. Thank you so much for the work on that. I know it is hard to get your arms around every aspect. The report did a good job to give us a look at away forward. Thank you for that. This concludes my report. On behalf of the world, thank you. These are difficult conversations. It is the next step, but they are healthy. We have to talk about them. There are a lot of different experiences and mess sons to be learned. I am looking forward to getting the solid plan and figuring out how to get the funding and shorten earthquake the politics to shorted ten the projects. Mr. Patrick. Jim patrick, patrick and company. It is great to see some robust discussion among the board and getting your feelings out there and trying to understand. I believe this report which we are talking about is of no value. I have said it to the gentleman who did it, and i try to maybe it said one thing. We need to rebrand this. How about the ctf . Connect the future. How about rts . Rail to success. Lets get the marketing people together. They said we need to rebrand this. I think that is correct. We need the funding, too. They didnt talk much about that. We can rebrand that if you so choose. Dont pay for a report. This is politics. We have lost a year, maybe a year and a half in this process. It is a tragedy. Thanks for the robust discussion, put yourself out and be a leader and move forward. You guys are the leadership panel. You are it. I am not it. Hopefully, i am trying to produce you along a little bit. That concludes members of the public. Call your next item. Item 6. Good morning. I am with tjpa. I will be brief. We are diligently moving towards closeout. It does take a weekly effort to nudge everything around the piechart. We will move things a bit. We have 12 trade packages at various stages and advancing 13 through the dispute resolution. We are up to 24 closed out in terms of moving around the piechart. In the last month we have crossed the line to close for two trade packages. We were forecast earlier this week that we have five to 11 that are ripe for crossing that threshold by the end of this month. Those are all of the ones that the discussion is not about merit. It is about quantum and teasing out the details. We are advancing along. Actually in terms of dispute resolution, that is advancing as well. On monday we have two trade packages in front of dispute resolution adviser to try to address specific issues around west waterproofing. That trajectory is continuing. I am stressing or pushing towards getting passed all the dispute resolutions in the first half of next year. I would like to do it in the First Quarter much next year. I am sure there will be a straggler or one or two. We have our sights set for january and february for the next round of dispute resolution activity. Relatively Good Movement on that front. In terms of contingency costs, again, as we go through the closeout, draw downs on contingencies slowed down to 300,000 in construction and 5. 3 million and then in terms of cmgc200000 leaving 4. 8 in that market with an overall total reserve of 42. 9. We are going to be tight but navigating through the issues and positively closing ou out te majority of them. In terms of the overall budget. It is the same in terms of phase one. We have had a Little Movement with respect to construction as well as design and support contracts, not terribly big movement but again as we extend it and continue to have to support the process, some of those numbers have moved a bit. The overall budget remains the same despite absorbing a good measure of dollars with respect to tenant improvements in 301 mission. That is the total of what i have to present at this update. We will be in closed session later to speak to the legal aspects of all of this activity. With that i can take any questions. No questions. Thank you. Your next item. Item 7 is Citizens Advisory Committee update. The vice chair were unable to be present. The chair advised nothing new to report. They wished all a happy holiday. Call your next eye stem. Item 8 Public Comment. An opportunity for members of the public to address us on matters not on todays calendar. We have one member of the public, mr. Patrick. Thank you for putting up with me. Two thoughts. One, i saw in a press release that tj put out we are in substantial agreement with the Millennium Tower people. I wonder the status of that. I would like to have that behind us. Number two, i want to call your attention to a funny magazine. The new yorker. This month they have an article called the floating utopia of sales park. It is a fabulous article, well written, went all over the country and really puts the sales park right on top. I dont know who is responsible for the article. I encourage you to read this. The fleeting utopia of sales force park. Thank you. That concludes members of the public. The consent calendar. All matters listeed are routine. There will be no discussion unless a member requests and it will be considered separately. I have not received any indication anyone wishes items severed. 9. 1 approving the november 14, 2019 meeting. 9. 2. Authorizing the executive director to execute an agreement and navcation of the agreement to the independent authorizing services. 9. 3 at the rate of 1 11,000. 9. 4 a professional Services Agreement to provide signage Consultation Services for a term not to exceed two years and 100,000. It can be increased up to 200,000 total. 9. 5 annual review and approval of board policy. Neither have updates at this time. That is your consent calendar. Move approval. Second. roll call . Seven ayes the consent calendar is approved. Moving to the regular calendar. Item 10 the presentation of the audited Financial Report and the report to the board of directors. Good morning. Ann rose man, chief financial officer. Thank you for having me today. I am very pleased to present the fy2019 audited Financial Report. I want to give a thanks to my financial staff. I have three. The three of them have helped us navigate through 2 billion worth of transactions and Financial Statements. This year was challenges with the closure, but also as we transition from single Capital Project to operations, our Financial Statements have also transitioned. These statements are more robust than what you have seen before. They are beginning to himmic other government entities, an annual Financial Report as opposed to Financial Statement. There are updates and differences in the Financial Statement. I am pleased to say we had an unmodified opinion which is akin to a clean audit. Our audittor is here to talk about the things he didnt find. Good morning. Thank you for having me. We are the independent auditors of the transbay joint powers authority. The scope of the audit is to ensure the Financial Statements are fairly stated. We confirm the balances and look at the cash. At the end of the process we issue an opinion on the Financial Statements. We do the audit in two phases. First is a compliance audit. You have unique requirements. We look at the controls as well through that process. Then we come back with a final confirmation process. I am pleased to let you know we issued a clean opinion. Management is helpful in answering the questions and facilitating the process as well. We had no adjustments to if Financial Statements. With that i will be more than happy to take any questions. No questions. Great job both of you. Thank you. We have one member of the public to comment on the item. Sorry, you must get tired of seeing me. Jim patrick, patrick and company. I look at the Financial Statement. It doesnt reflect one thing. If you look at the organizational chart in the Financial Statement in the first part you will find 12 employees. Maybe six years ago when i started to be involved in this, i discovered we were going to build a 2. 3 billion structure. I said it couldnt be done with 12 employees. It was done. Now we have and i felt we needed a larger organization. If we had done that, we would have had a lot of layoffs now, unfunded pension liabilities and all of those things. Clearly the way we have managed it we dont have those. That is good news. These are opportunity costs that dont reflect in our statement, but we are saving them now. I didnt think it could be done. It is a credit to the organization who made this happen with 12 people, 12 or 13, and today we have 12 or 13. That doesnt show up in the Financial Statement. That is a footnote. I want to bring that footnote to your attention. Thank you. That concludes members of the public. That concludes the regulations calendar. You are scheduled foreclosed session at this time. We have not received any notice the member of the public wishes to address you. Seeing none we will go to the board of directors meeting is now back in open session. In regard to item 14, there is nothing to report from closed session. That concludes your agenda. This concludes the agenda for today and adjournment. This is the second anniversary of mayor ed lees passing. Join in his remembrance. That would be great. Thank you. Sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very Minimal Energy use. It Still Matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. So having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. We heard about cleanpowersf and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. It was super easy to sign up. Our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. Nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. Its an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around Climate Change and its so easy that its hard to not want to do it, and it doesnt really add anything to this is a special meeting of the Small Business meeting on friday, december 20, 2019. The Small Business commission thanks sfgovtv for tele vicing the meeting on sfgovtv. Please silence your phones and electronic devices. Public comment during the meeting is limited to two minutes per speaker unless established by the presiding officer. Speakers are requested to state names, completion of speaker card will help ensure proper spelling of the written record of the meeting. Please place those in the basket. When Public Comment is called if you could please line up on the right side of the room for crowd control that would be much